Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 23191 

determination will be made available as 

directed under the ADDRESSES section. 

List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 

33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165–-REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T08–0212 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T08–0212 Safety Zone; Pensacola 

Bay; Pensacola, FL. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: a portion of Pensacola Bay 

including all waters represented by 

positions 30°20′40.73′′ N 087°17′19.73′′ 

W, 30°20′11.12′′ N 087°17′20.31′′ W, 

30°20′41.51′′ N 087°15′01.15′′ W, and 

30°20′11.76′′ N 087°15′01.18′′ W creating 

a box, referred to as the ‘‘Show Box’’. 

(b) Enforcement dates. This rule will 

be enforced from May 3, 2011, through 

May 4, 2011. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165 of this 

part, entry into this zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Mobile or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter 

into or passage through the zone must 

request permission from the Captain of 

the Port Mobile or a designated 

representative. 

They may be contacted on VHF–FM 

channels 16 or by telephone at 251– 

441–5976. 

(3) If permission is granted, all 

persons and vessels shall comply with 

the instructions of the Captain of the 

Port or designated representative. 

Designated representatives include 

commissioned, warrant, and petty 

officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. 

(d) Informational broadcasts: The 

Captain of the Port or a designated 

representative will inform the public 

through broadcast notices to mariners of 

the enforcement period for the safety 

zone as well as any changes in the 

planned schedule. 

Dated: April 5, 2011. 

D.J. Rose, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Mobile. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9990 Filed 4–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 167 

[Docket No. USCG–2002–12702] 

RIN 1625–AA48 

Traffic Separation Schemes: In the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca and Its 

Approaches; in Puget Sound and its 

Approaches; and in Haro Strait, 

Boundary Pass, and the Strait of 

Georgia 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is finalizing 

without change its November 19, 2010, 

interim rule codifying traffic separation 

schemes in the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

and its Approaches; in Puget Sound and 

its Approaches; and in Haro Strait, 

Boundary Pass, and the Strait of 

Georgia. The Coast Guard established 

these traffic separation schemes under 

authority of the Ports and Waterways 

Safety Act. 

DATES: This final rule is effective May 

26, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2002–12702 and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility (M–30), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. You 

may also find this docket on the Internet 

by going to http://www.regulations.gov, 

inserting USCG–2002–12702 in the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box, and then clicking 

‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this rule, 

contact Mr. George Detweiler, U.S. Coast 

Guard Office of Navigation Systems, 

telephone 202–372–1566, or e-mail 

George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions about viewing the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abbreviations 

II. Regulatory History 

III. Basis and Purpose 

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Abbreviations 

2004 Act Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation Act of 2004 

ATBA Area to be Avoided 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CTVS Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

PARS Port Access Route Study 

PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act 

SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

TSS Traffic Separation Scheme 

U.S.C. United States Code 

VTS vessel traffic service 

II. Regulatory History 

On August 27, 2002, the Coast Guard 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ‘‘Traffic 

Separation Schemes: In the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca and its Approaches; in 

Puget Sound and its Approaches; and in 

Haro Strait, Boundary Pass, and the 

Strait of Georgia’’ in the Federal Register 

(67 FR 54981). We received nine letters 

commenting on the NPRM. The 

commenters did not request a public 

meeting, and none was held. 

On November 19, 2010, the Coast 

Guard published an interim rule (75 FR 

70818) that codified existing Traffic 

Separation Schemes (TSSs) in the Strait 

of Juan de Fuca and its Approaches; in 

Puget Sound and its Approaches; and in 

Haro Strait, Boundary Pass, and the 

Strait of Georgia. The Coast Guard did 

not publish a Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) for this 

rule, citing the Administrative 

Procedure Act ‘‘good cause’’ exception at 

5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) in the interim rule. 

The interim rule sought comments on 

the enumerated Traffic Separation 

Schemes. The comment period closed 

January 3, 2011, and we received no 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

23192 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

public comments on the interim rule. 

No public meeting was requested and 

none was held. The interim rule became 

effective on January 18, 2011. There are 

no changes from the interim rule to this 

final rule. 

III. Basis and Purpose 

With this rule the Coast Guard 

finalizes the codification of the traffic 

separation schemes (TSSs) identified 

above. The Coast Guard created each of 

these TSSs after conducting a Port 

Access Route Study (PARS) in 

accordance with the Ports and 

Waterways Safety Act (PAWSA) 33 

U.S.C. 1221–1232. Each TSS that is part 

of this rulemaking is shown on nautical 

charts, is described in the United States 

Coast Pilot, was implemented by the 

International Maritime Organization, 

and is described in ‘‘Ships Routeing,’’ 

Tenth Edition, 2010. Each TSS has also 

been codified in the CFR since January 

18, 2011, when the interim rule became 

effective. For a full discussion of the 

basis and purpose of this rulemaking see 

the interim rule (75 FR 70818, 70819). 

IV. Discussion of Comments and 

Changes 

We received no public comments in 

response to our interim rule. 

Accordingly, the Coast Guard has made 

no changes in this final rule. A full 

discussion of the provisions of this rule 

may be found in the ‘‘Discussion of 

Interim Rule’’ section of the interim rule. 

(75 FR 70818, at 70820). 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this final rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, as supplemented 

by Executive Order 13563, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. 

As previously discussed, the TSSs 

finalized by this final rule were codified 

by the interim rule, implemented by 

IMO, and are reflected on current 

nautical charts and in nautical 

publications. We anticipate no 

increased costs for vessels traveling 

within the aforementioned areas. These 

internationally recognized traffic 

separation schemes provide better 

routing order and predictability, 

increase maritime safety, and reduce the 

potential for collisions, groundings, and 

hazardous cargo spills. 

By finalizing the interim rule, we 

complete the process of recording the 

latitudes and longitudes of the TSSs’ 

coordinates in the CFR tables and make 

it easier for the public to reference our 

regulations when recommending 

modifications or other operational 

considerations. This rule finalizes 

incorporation of the TSSs in the CFRs 

and does not impact mariner actions or 

expectations. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this final rule has a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

As this rule serves to finalize in the 

CFR TSSs that have already been 

implemented, we estimate that there 

will be no increased costs due to this 

rule. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies, 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this final 

rule does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule will have a significant 

economic impact on it, please submit a 

comment to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. 

In your comment, explain why you 

think it qualifies and how and to what 

degree this rule would economically 

affect it. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offer to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking. If you 

believe that this rule affects your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please consult Mr. George 

Detweiler, Office of Navigation Systems, 

telephone 202–372–1566. The Coast 

Guard will not retaliate against small 

entities that question or complain about 

this rule or any policy or action of the 

Coast Guard. 

D. Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. 

We have analyzed this rule under that 

Order and have determined that it has 

implications of federalism. Conflict 

preemption principles apply to PWSA 

Title I, and the TSSs in this rule are 

issued under the authority of PWSA 

Title I. These TSSs are specifically 

intended to have preemptive impact 

over State law covering the same subject 

matter in the same geographic area. 

Title I of PWSA (33 U.S.C. 1221 et 

seq.) authorizes the Secretary to issue 

regulations to designate TSSs to provide 

safe access routes for the movement of 

vessel traffic proceeding to or from ports 

or places subject to the jurisdiction of 

the United States. In enacting the PWSA 

in 1972, Congress found that advance 

planning and consultation with the 

affected States and other stakeholders 

was necessary in the development and 

implementation of a TSS. Throughout 

the history of the development of the 

TSSs that are the subject of this rule, we 

consulted with the affected State and 

Federal pilots’ associations, vessel 

operators, users, United States and 

Canadian Vessel Traffic Services, 

Canadian Coast Guard and Transport 

Canada representatives, environmental 

advocacy groups, Native American 

tribal groups, and all affected 

stakeholders. 

Presently, there are no Washington 

State laws or regulations concerning the 

same subjects as those contained in this 

rule. We understand that the State does 

not contemplate issuing any such 

regulations. It should be noted that, by 

virtue of the PWSA authority, the TSSs 

in this rule preempt any State rule on 

the same subject. 

Foreign vessel owners and operators 

usually become aware of TSSs when the 

TSSs are added to the United States 

Coast Pilot and the nautical charts that 

are required by 33 CFR 164.33 to be on 

each ship operating in U.S. waters. 

Foreign vessel owners and operators 

also become aware of TSSs through 

their national IMO delegation and IMO 

publications. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 23193 

The individual States of the United 

States are not represented at the IMO as 

that is the role of the Federal 

Government. The U.S. Coast Guard is 

the principal agency responsible for 

advancing the interests of the United 

States at the IMO. In this role, we solicit 

comments from the stakeholders 

through public meetings and develop a 

unified U.S. position prior to attending 

sessions of the IMO Subcommittee on 

Safety of Navigation and the Maritime 

Safety Committee where TSSs are 

discussed. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

We have reviewed this rule under 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. Rulemakings that are 

determined to have ‘‘tribal implications’’ 

under that Order (i.e., those that have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes) 

require the preparation of a tribal 

summary impact statement. This rule 

will not have implications of the kind 

envisioned under the Order because it 

will not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

preempt tribal law, or substantially 

affect lands or rights held exclusively 

by, or on behalf of, those governments. 

Whether or not the Executive Order 

applies in this case, it is the policy of 

the Department of Homeland Security 

and the U.S. Coast Guard to engage in 

meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribal officials in 

policy decisions that have tribal 

implications under the Presidential 

Memorandum of November 5, 2009, 

(74 FR 57881, November 9, 2009), and 

to seek out and consult with Native 

Americans on all of its rulemakings that 

may affect them. We regularly consulted 

and collaborated with the Tribes 

throughout the PARS and this 

rulemaking. For a complete discussion 

of these consultations see the interim 

rule (75 FR 70818, 70825). 

In the IR, the Coast Guard invited 

comments on how the codification of 

the existing TSSs might impact tribal 

governments, even if that impact may 

not constitute a ‘‘tribal implication’’ 

under the Order. We received no 

comments to our request. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs agencies to use voluntary 

consensus standards in their regulatory 

activities unless the agency provides 

Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards, nor is the Coast Guard aware 

of the existence of any standards that 

address these TSSs. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that this action is one 

of a category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 

2–1, paragraph (34)(i) of the Instruction. 

This rule involves navigational aids, 

which include TSSs. An environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are available in 

the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 167 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Waterways. 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 33 CFR part 167, subpart B, 

which was published at 75 FR 70818 on 

November 19, 2010, is adopted as a final 

rule. 

Dated: April 11, 2011. 

Dana A. Goward, 

U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Marine 

Transportation Systems Management. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9895 Filed 4–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 167 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0718] 

RIN 1625–AB55 

Traffic Separation Schemes: In the 

Approaches to Portland, ME; Boston, 

MA; Narragansett Bay, RI and 

Buzzards Bay, MA; Chesapeake Bay, 

VA, and Cape Fear River, NC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES